The latest news on New York architecture.

The world we live in is obsessed with vintage meeting modern. A common hobby is often restoring antique items, and making them seemingly brand new. Few often ponder the work that goes into doing this, and sometimes chalk restoration up to simply being a new coat of paint. There is a whole process that goes into the preservation and restoration of historical buildings, however, and it is quite interesting.

Construction cannot simply be delved into, but instead, must be planned out first. This leads into the debate on linear versus phased construction. Essentially, which is the best for this project? Well, the answer is typically both when dealing the restoration of a historical building.

Figuratively so, linear construction is traditional. This undergoes meticulous planning, and all of the bases get covered. It is a slower process, but it is important to remember that the original plans for a historical building were, in fact, slower, as well. Linear construction basically leaves little to no room for error, as everything is thoughtfully planned out. Of course, linear construction covers the vintage side of things quite nicely.

Phased construction, on the other hand, is very fast-paced. The construction of a building has already started when the final phases are still being planned out. Basically, it is the execution of an idea, without the idea being completely finished. It is seemingly more risky, but is the most popular method in the construction world today. As you can tell, it is the modern aspect of the restoration of historical buildings.

With all of this in mind, the argument of linear versus phased construction still stands. It is safe to say that, though, that choosing an expert on both types of construction, is essential. With over 25 years of experience, Scott Henson is the architectural expert you are looking for.